Global climate change and glaciers

[BaliBabyDoc]

CNN

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Melting of glaciers in the Patagonian ice fields of southern Argentina and Chile has doubled in recent years, caused by higher temperatures, lower snowfall and a more rapid breaking of icebergs, a study suggests.

Maybe it's part of a normal climate cycle . . . maybe not . . . inquiring minds want to know.

 

[MovingTarget]

I would like to know for sure, although I suspect it is a natural cycle that is only augmented by us. I hope this isnt our causing, but hey, the more we know about it, the better...

 

[Jmman]

I am actually doing a research paper on global warming right now. From what I have seen so far, there are many other factors that seem to have a direct correlation to increased GAT besides CO2 emisions or greenhouse gases. The chicken little mentality of some environmental activists seems to be the driving factor behing the global warming scare, not science.....

 

[glenn1]

Maybe it's part of a normal climate cycle . . . maybe not . . . inquiring minds want to know.

Yes, but unfortunately we'll all be long gone by the time some future generation determines the answer to that question. We don't even know what a "normal" climate cycle is, much less the what would represent a range which was an order of magnitude outside the common but still within the boundaries of "normal" over a longer time period still. We can't even predict the weather with precision more than a week out, so I don't know how some folks are so confident extrapolating the current warming trend into the future

 

[dmcowen674]

I know we are causing it. Tons of ashpalt, gases, cut down all the trees, exhaust of every kind and the list goes on and on.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
I know we are causing it. Tons of ashpalt, gases, cut down all the trees, exhaust of every kind and the list goes on and on.

Now all you have to do is provide scientific proof that call withstand peer review from the entire scientific community.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

I guess the problem is that people with vested interests in "cutting down the forests, laying asphalt, building/selling (and driving) Hummers" are quite comfortable saying it's not a problem despite a lack of evidence to support such a conclusion. Even a kid in kindergarten (or a cat) understands that you don't poop where you eat (or sleep). It's common sense to extend such logic to a global scale particularly when more and more people are using an ever increasing amount (per capita) of natural resources and generating commensurate amounts of waste.

Even Republicans have to breathe but today's beneficiaries of lax environmental stewardship probably will not pay the consequences. But it as already abundantly clear that air quality has health (asthma etiology and exacerbation) and economic (Great Smokies look like crap due to coal-fired plants) consequences. The brown fields in TX/LA are not a natural phenomenon. Cruise ships (and military vessels) dumping partially treated waste/bilge into the ocean is not natural and must have consequences. Deforestation by fire of the Amazon and Indonesian archipelago will have consequences . . . ever been to Jakarta? During my last trip, the air quality inside a vehicle with two smokers was better than the air quality outside.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

During my last trip, the air quality inside a vehicle with two smokers was better than the air quality outside.

Unlike the chicken little claims of less reputable scientists/advocates . . . I'm not exaggerating. I doubt Houston, LA, or Atlanta will ever rival Mexico City or Jakarta but I've noticed the decline in air quality over the past few years in my area (Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill). As a semi-active athlete (with asthma), I've had more respiratory failures in the second half of the 90s than the first half despite a dramatic decline in my activity (secondary to academic requirements/injury NOT age).

I climbed an active volcano (summit 12K ft) in July 2000 but I dare not ride my bike during Code Orange days in the Triangle.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

During my last trip, the air quality inside a vehicle with two smokers was better than the air quality outside.

Unlike the chicken little claims of less reputable scientists/advocates . . . I'm not exaggerating. I doubt Houston, LA, or Atlanta will ever rival Mexico City or Jakarta but I've noticed the decline in air quality over the past few years in my area (Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill). As a semi-active athlete (with asthma), I've had more respiratory failures in the second half of the 90s than the first half despite a dramatic decline in my activity (secondary to academic requirements/injury NOT age).

I climbed an active volcano (summit 12K ft) in July 2000 but I dare not ride my bike during Code Orange days in the Triangle.

Right now our city is facing federal issues because of our air quality. However most of our bad airquality days are caused by external events(burning sugar cain in LA, fires in mexico, pollution blowing in from other areas). The EPA does not seem to care that this city is not the cause of our air quality problems.
We will likely soon be forced to pay higher vehicle inspection fees for tailpipe testing. Tailpipe testing has shown to have almost no effect where implemented(estimated to reduce pollution by 1-2PPM).
Meanwhile we have 2 coal plants that could probably reduce their pollution levels, but the epa is going to skip them and go after the cars. Given the option of spending $30 on tailpipe testing or $30 on coal plant pollution reduction, it would seem cleaning up the coal would be a better option.

Shame there seem to be no resonable people making these decisions either locally or at the fed level.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Jmman
I am actually doing a research paper on global warming right now. From what I have seen so far, there are many other factors that seem to have a direct correlation to increased GAT besides CO2 emisions or greenhouse gases. The chicken little mentality of some environmental activists seems to be the driving factor behing the global warming scare, not science.....

There are a number of pollutants that contribute to Global Climate Change, but CO2 is the biggest problem as it takes much longer to be removed from the environment. Some pollutants are removed in a few days or years(upto about 10 years), but CO2 takes centuries.

 

[heartsurgeon]

I know we are causing it.

thank goodness someone does...

 

[CaptnKirk]

Global Warming is considered a blessing in Cleveland.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
I guess the problem is that people with vested interests in "cutting down the forests, laying asphalt, building/selling (and driving) Hummers" are quite comfortable saying it's not a problem despite a lack of evidence to support such a conclusion. Even a kid in kindergarten (or a cat) understands that you don't poop where you eat (or sleep). It's common sense to extend such logic to a global scale particularly when more and more people are using an ever increasing amount (per capita) of natural resources and generating commensurate amounts of waste.

Even Republicans have to breathe but today's beneficiaries of lax environmental stewardship probably will not pay the consequences. But it as already abundantly clear that air quality has health (asthma etiology and exacerbation) and economic (Great Smokies look like crap due to coal-fired plants) consequences. The brown fields in TX/LA are not a natural phenomenon. Cruise ships (and military vessels) dumping partially treated waste/bilge into the ocean is not natural and must have consequences. Deforestation by fire of the Amazon and Indonesian archipelago will have consequences . . . ever been to Jakarta? During my last trip, the air quality inside a vehicle with two smokers was better than the air quality outside.

Excellent post Bdoc.

What is this brown fields in LA & TX you mentioned???

 

[Jmman]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Jmman
I am actually doing a research paper on global warming right now. From what I have seen so far, there are many other factors that seem to have a direct correlation to increased GAT besides CO2 emisions or greenhouse gases. The chicken little mentality of some environmental activists seems to be the driving factor behing the global warming scare, not science.....

There are a number of pollutants that contribute to Global Climate Change, but CO2 is the biggest problem as it takes much longer to be removed from the environment. Some pollutants are removed in a few days or years(upto about 10 years), but CO2 takes centuries.

Maybe you can explain this to me, because I have heard no adequate explanations. Over the last one hundred years global average temperatures have increased by approximately 1 degree F, but most of that took place before 1940. Guess what, there was no huge increase in atmospheric CO2 levels prior to 1940. Between 1940 and 1970, CO2 levels rapidly increased. Guess what, global average temperatures dropped dramatically, so much so that many "environmentalists" were warning of the next ice age. Now where along the line have we come to the conclusion that CO2 causes global warming? There seems to be more scientific data that CO2 causes global cooling instead of global warming.

 

[Linflas]

Originally posted by: Jmman

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Jmman
I am actually doing a research paper on global warming right now. From what I have seen so far, there are many other factors that seem to have a direct correlation to increased GAT besides CO2 emisions or greenhouse gases. The chicken little mentality of some environmental activists seems to be the driving factor behing the global warming scare, not science.....

There are a number of pollutants that contribute to Global Climate Change, but CO2 is the biggest problem as it takes much longer to be removed from the environment. Some pollutants are removed in a few days or years(upto about 10 years), but CO2 takes centuries.

Maybe you can explain this to me, because I have heard no adequate explanations. Over the last one hundred years global average temperatures have increased by approximately 1 degree F, but most of that took place before 1940. Guess what, there was no huge increase in atmospheric CO2 levels prior to 1940. Between 1940 and 1970, CO2 levels rapidly increased. Guess what, global average temperatures dropped dramatically, so much so that many "environmentalists" were warning of the next ice age. Now where along the line have we come to the conclusion that CO2 causes global warming? There seems to be more scientific data that CO2 causes global cooling instead of global warming.

You may want to have a look at some papers on the carbon cycle in geology as well if you have not already done so. In all the discussion of CO2 it seems to be routinely ignored as both a source and sink for atmospheric CO2. Then again much of geologic history seems to be ignored when discussing the issue of global warming.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Jmman

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Jmman
I am actually doing a research paper on global warming right now. From what I have seen so far, there are many other factors that seem to have a direct correlation to increased GAT besides CO2 emisions or greenhouse gases. The chicken little mentality of some environmental activists seems to be the driving factor behing the global warming scare, not science.....

There are a number of pollutants that contribute to Global Climate Change, but CO2 is the biggest problem as it takes much longer to be removed from the environment. Some pollutants are removed in a few days or years(upto about 10 years), but CO2 takes centuries.

Maybe you can explain this to me, because I have heard no adequate explanations. Over the last one hundred years global average temperatures have increased by approximately 1 degree F, but most of that took place before 1940. Guess what, there was no huge increase in atmospheric CO2 levels prior to 1940. Between 1940 and 1970, CO2 levels rapidly increased. Guess what, global average temperatures dropped dramatically, so much so that many "environmentalists" were warning of the next ice age. Now where along the line have we come to the conclusion that CO2 causes global warming? There seems to be more scientific data that CO2 causes global cooling instead of global warming.

Chechout these links:

EPA What we know

Lotta stuff here

 

[Jmman]

Oh yeah, the IPCC again. Maybe you need to dig a little bit deeper. You will see how much the IPCC report is a bunch of BS.......





This is a good article from the Wall Street Journal......WSJ

Here is a more indepth source on that bastion of truth the IPCC.......Text

Here is another good one from an MIT professor of Meterology........Text


And yet another one from Dr. Saliunas from the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics..........Text

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Jmman
Oh yeah, the IPCC again. Maybe you need to dig a little bit deeper. You will see how much the IPCC report is a bunch of BS.......





This is a good article from the Wall Street Journal......WSJ

Here is a more indepth source on that bastion of truth the IPCC.......Text

Here is another good one from an MIT professor of Meterology........Text


And yet another one from Dr. Saliunas from the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics..........Text

The EPA good enough for you?

 

[Jmman]

The EPA uses the IPCC as the basis for their global warming claims. I do not trust the EPA. If you think about it, might the EPA have an agenda concerning global warming? After all, if they can convince people that the global warming hysteria is justified, what does that mean for them? More money, bigger budget, more power and influence......

I can find you many leading experts in climatology and meteorology that are entirely skeptical about global warming being caused by manmade emissions...... I trust them much more than some bureaucrat in Washington.......

 

[XZeroII]

My problem with reputable scientists is that they change their views every few years. Like someone mentioned, back in the 70's they were predicting the next ice age. We were all going to freeze to death because global temps were dropping like a rock. Now it's the exact opposite. Both times we have "hard evidence", but we get two exact opposite conclusions.


Scientists suck. I used to aspire to be one, but not anymore. They are wreckless and egotistical. People who believe them are foolish.

 

[Isla]

Originally posted by: XZeroII
My problem with reputable scientists is that they change their views every few years. Like someone mentioned, back in the 70's they were predicting the next ice age. We were all going to freeze to death because global temps were dropping like a rock. Now it's the exact opposite. Both times we have "hard evidence", but we get two exact opposite conclusions.


Scientists suck. I used to aspire to be one, but not anymore. They are wreckless and egotistical. People who believe them are foolish.

It all just depends on who is PAYING the scientists to do the research,

 

[PainTrain]

Scientists suck. I used to aspire to be one, but not anymore. They are wreckless and egotistical. People who believe them are foolish.

So you'd prefer the word of less educated conjecture? On what do you base your own opinions if not science?

 

[YellowRose]

The cause of global warming is the rise of Talk Radio, Politicans and guests. All of that hot air is affecting the climate.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: YellowRose
The cause of global warming is the rise of Talk Radio, Politicans and guests. All of that hot air is affecting the climate.

Good thing we use 1s and 0s here on the intarweb - imagine the global warming problem if we were actually speaking:Q

CkG

 

[Martin]

Consider these tried and true sayings:
"An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure"
"better safe than sorry"

You would these two would convince people to take some precaution, but I guess some people just don't care. What really gets me is the argumetns anti-kyoto people used. They always pointed out the fact that china and india were excluded, yet they NEVER offered a fix (namely requiring developing countries to comply), but instead wanted to simply scrap the agreement.


But here...let me get out my environmental views out...
But global warming (or to be precise, the high likelyhood of global warming) is only one problem. There are so many environmental problems is baffles the mind. Pollution, waste, resource exploitation, unsustainable lifestyles. I mean jesus people, the planet is a self contained environment, there's only so much damage you can do to it before it breaks down!

Of course, there is a solution and its not going back to being monkeys. Being a firm believer in science (and a scientist in training) I think science will save us. The way I see it, rather than going to war over imaginary threats, or spending billions on gun registries, the major goverments should get together and invest in science. The ideal situation would be the US, EU, Japan and Canada getting together and starting a massive scientific program - a program so vast, it would eclipse the Manhattan Project. The program would have 2 objectives: 1) to get a renewable and clean source of energy - solar, wave or fusion and 2) to accelerate nanotech by decades. These two combined would mean that we could once and for all stop polluting or damaging the earth. All of our energy would be clean and whatever waste we produce otherwise could be cleaned up and decomposed into its primary elements by nanotech.
This program would also have the side effect of creating thousands of high tech jobs and improving the economy. Perhaps it could also be paired up with a massive school reform that makes curiculums much more academic and much more strict.

Just imagine. Clean air that doesn't make your face mask turn black when you go for a quick 10k bike ride downtown, lakes so clean you could actually swim in them, plants, animals and humans without high concentrations of toxins in their bodies...

I know it' won't happen, but its possible and it would be one of the best things humanity can do.